6 ms·

This Russian propaganda is obviously targeting President Trump's plans to strengthen the eastern flank of NATO. Something Obama has been extremely weak on. He c

This Russian propaganda is obviously targeting President Trump's plans to strengthen the eastern flank of NATO. Something Obama has been extremely weak on. He cancelled Missile Defense after opposition from Russia (famously promising "Vladimir" “more flexibility” on the issue after his "last election"). Eastern European leaders were warning Obama about Ukraine way before it happened but he wouldn't listen. And before that Georgia, but Obama was dead-set on his Russian "reset" and wanted to sweep these issues under the rug.

newacct583 6y ago
> Trump's plans to strengthen the eastern flank of NATO. Something Obama has been extremely weak on. I think you're going to need to start citing that, I'm not aware of any such plans. Certainly nothing that rises to the level of action (e.g. announcing the removal of a third of the US forces in Germany, as happened last week). This is just a whataboutist response. While there is criticism to be made everywhere about all things, the idea that the Trump administration has NOT been extraordinarily compliant to Russian demands is just ridiculous.
- auganov 6y ago
  Germany is not on the eastern flank of NATO, many of the troops being withdrawn will be relocated closer to Russia [0] . And again the move was spurred in part by Germany's pipeline with Russia - Nord Stream 2. Which clearly shows the Trump administration is taking stronger steps to punish NATO members which cooperate with Russia. > Trump administration has NOT been extraordinarily compliant to Russian demands is just ridiculous Yes, this is completely false. The Trump administration has been tougher on pretty much everything involving Russian interests. From Ukraine, Iran, Syria, sanctions on Russia, to yes strengthening the eastern flank of NATO. [0] https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Speeches/Speech/Article/2292081/us-european-command-force-posture-policy-press-conference-secretary-espers-open/ https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Speeches/Speech/Article/229... "The current EUCOM plan will reposition approximately 11,900 military personnel from Germany – from roughly 36,000 down to 24,000 – in a manner that will strengthen NATO, enhance the deterrence of Russia, and meet the other principles I set forth"
- ceilingcorner 6y ago
  > Polish defence minister says the US will deploy 1,000 soldiers in Poland to oversee forces on NATO's eastern flank. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/07/poland-deploy-1000-troops-eastern-border-200731084535564.html https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/07/poland-deploy-1000-tr... The article even uses the term "NATO's eastern flank."
  - foepys 6y ago
    Get 12,000 soldiers home from Germany, deploy 1,000 in Poland and call it strengthening the eastern front. That math doesn't check out at all.
    - ceilingcorner 6y ago
      1. Germany isn't on the Eastern Front. Poland actually borders Russia (the exclave on the Baltic.) 2. The US is in the process of building a military base in Poland. > In 2018, Poland proposed that the United States open a permanent military base within its country. The Polish government would finance around $2 Billion of the cost of hosting American forces, if the proposal was accepted by the United States. Poland has proposed either Bydgoszcz, or Toruń, as potential base locations.[18] Since 1999, Poland has sought closer military ties with the United States.[19] In June 2019, both sides agreed to send 1,000 U.S. troops to Poland.[20] In September 2019, six locations were determined to host approximately 4,500 of the U.S. military in Poland, including: Poznań, Drawsko Pomorskie, Strachowice, Łask, Powidz and Lubliniec. 3. Some of those troops will be moved from Germany to Poland. > On 24 June 2020, Trump said at a press conference with Duda that the United States plans to move some U.S. troops from Germany to Poland.[22][23] Trump said that "Poland is one of the few countries that are fulfilling their obligations under NATO — in particular, their monetary obligations — and they asked us if we would send some additional troops. ... I think [putting more US troops in Poland] sends a very strong signal to Russia." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland–United_States_relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland–United_States_relations Honestly, if you can't bother to do basic research about the situation, it's better to not comment on it.
      - 6y ago
bovermyer 6y ago
"Russian propaganda?" Well, I think that's the first time I've been called Russian propaganda. I got a good chuckle out of that. EDIT - I misunderstood the comment. I'm leaving my original reply intact above, however, for clarity.
- auganov 6y ago
  No, it refers to the story.
  - bovermyer 6y ago
    Ah, my mistake.
vkou 6y ago
> He cancelled Missile Defense after opposition from Russia Anti-ICBM defenses in Europe undermine MAD, and if I were to believe the pro-nuclear-weapon people, (who insist that we are all better off pointing thousands of nukes at eachother), MAD is the only thing that has been keeping the world in relative peace for the past 60 years. Serious question: Do you want to live in a world where MAD no longer works, but we still have all those thousands of nuclear weapons?
- auganov 6y ago
  There's already a Aegis Ashore Missile Defense System in Romania. The United States has no official policy of mutually assured destruction. If you're asking me - everything should be done to make sure one can win in a potential nuclear war. MAD sounds like glorified defeatism to me. President Reagan had a great Strategic Defense Initiative but it has been shelved in the 90s. Now Space Force could be an attempt at bringing a lot of that back in a way that will be much harder to get rid of by future administrations. To not be working on such systems is (not necessarily mutually) "assured destruction".
  - vkou 6y ago
    I don't care about what the official policy is. I care about the outcomes. Your reasoning means that the most optimal move for Russia would be to nuke you, today, before your anti-MAD system is in place. It will, after all, save more Russian lives then being attacked by an unassailable adversary in the future. The fact that you consider nuclear war to be winnable is horrifying. The whole point of it is that everyone loses. That's not defeatism, that's the only sane way to deal with two sides having end-of-the-world weapons.
    - auganov 6y ago
      > Your reasoning means that the most optimal move for Russia would be to nuke you No, I doubt Russia would dare use their nukes. Again the facility in Romania has become operational in 2019, no nuke from Russia so far. The one Obama cancelled was supposed to be in Poland. Roughly similar distance from mainland Russia. > The fact that you consider nuclear war to be winnable is horrifying. The whole point of it is that everyone loses. That's not defeatism, that's the only sane way to deal with two sides having end-of-the-world weapons. Expecting to lose without putting up a fight is defeatism. Nobody wants a nuclear war. But nonetheless I'm very happy that the US and other militaries are preparing for this scenario. Switzerland has a system of nuclear bunkers that can house more than its current population - I think that's very smart. It's not set in stone that humanity would end after such a war. Some projections even see most Americans surviving. And don't discount a scenario where America can totally neutralize an adversary's nuclear capability with new tech. This should be (and probably is) the goal. We don't even know that much about the current capability. Practically speaking a "MAD" approach benefits Russia much more than anybody else. Their military is rather unimpressive. Russia's nuclear capability is the only way Russia can seem strong and keep getting away with everything they do. Countries like Russia cannot be trusted to comply with any nuclear agreements. When the West stops its work on nuclear related technologies it only gives countries like Russia an edge.

newacct583 6y ago

> Trump's plans to strengthen the eastern flank of NATO. Something Obama has been extremely weak on. I think you're going to need to start citing that, I'm not aware of any such plans. Certainly nothing that rises to the level of action (e.g. announcing the removal of a third of the US forces in Germany, as happened last week). This is just a whataboutist response. While there is criticism to be made everywhere about all things, the idea that the Trump administration has NOT been extraordinarily compliant to Russian demands is just ridiculous.

auganov 6y ago
Germany is not on the eastern flank of NATO, many of the troops being withdrawn will be relocated closer to Russia [0] . And again the move was spurred in part by Germany's pipeline with Russia - Nord Stream 2. Which clearly shows the Trump administration is taking stronger steps to punish NATO members which cooperate with Russia. > Trump administration has NOT been extraordinarily compliant to Russian demands is just ridiculous Yes, this is completely false. The Trump administration has been tougher on pretty much everything involving Russian interests. From Ukraine, Iran, Syria, sanctions on Russia, to yes strengthening the eastern flank of NATO. [0] https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Speeches/Speech/Article/2292081/us-european-command-force-posture-policy-press-conference-secretary-espers-open/ https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Speeches/Speech/Article/229... "The current EUCOM plan will reposition approximately 11,900 military personnel from Germany – from roughly 36,000 down to 24,000 – in a manner that will strengthen NATO, enhance the deterrence of Russia, and meet the other principles I set forth"
ceilingcorner 6y ago
> Polish defence minister says the US will deploy 1,000 soldiers in Poland to oversee forces on NATO's eastern flank. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/07/poland-deploy-1000-troops-eastern-border-200731084535564.html https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/07/poland-deploy-1000-tr... The article even uses the term "NATO's eastern flank."
- foepys 6y ago
  Get 12,000 soldiers home from Germany, deploy 1,000 in Poland and call it strengthening the eastern front. That math doesn't check out at all.
  - ceilingcorner 6y ago
    1. Germany isn't on the Eastern Front. Poland actually borders Russia (the exclave on the Baltic.) 2. The US is in the process of building a military base in Poland. > In 2018, Poland proposed that the United States open a permanent military base within its country. The Polish government would finance around $2 Billion of the cost of hosting American forces, if the proposal was accepted by the United States. Poland has proposed either Bydgoszcz, or Toruń, as potential base locations.[18] Since 1999, Poland has sought closer military ties with the United States.[19] In June 2019, both sides agreed to send 1,000 U.S. troops to Poland.[20] In September 2019, six locations were determined to host approximately 4,500 of the U.S. military in Poland, including: Poznań, Drawsko Pomorskie, Strachowice, Łask, Powidz and Lubliniec. 3. Some of those troops will be moved from Germany to Poland. > On 24 June 2020, Trump said at a press conference with Duda that the United States plans to move some U.S. troops from Germany to Poland.[22][23] Trump said that "Poland is one of the few countries that are fulfilling their obligations under NATO — in particular, their monetary obligations — and they asked us if we would send some additional troops. ... I think [putting more US troops in Poland] sends a very strong signal to Russia." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland–United_States_relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland–United_States_relations Honestly, if you can't bother to do basic research about the situation, it's better to not comment on it.
    - 6y ago

bovermyer 6y ago

"Russian propaganda?" Well, I think that's the first time I've been called Russian propaganda. I got a good chuckle out of that. EDIT - I misunderstood the comment. I'm leaving my original reply intact above, however, for clarity.

auganov 6y ago
No, it refers to the story.
- bovermyer 6y ago
  Ah, my mistake.

vkou 6y ago

> He cancelled Missile Defense after opposition from Russia Anti-ICBM defenses in Europe undermine MAD, and if I were to believe the pro-nuclear-weapon people, (who insist that we are all better off pointing thousands of nukes at eachother), MAD is the only thing that has been keeping the world in relative peace for the past 60 years. Serious question: Do you want to live in a world where MAD no longer works, but we still have all those thousands of nuclear weapons?

auganov 6y ago
There's already a Aegis Ashore Missile Defense System in Romania. The United States has no official policy of mutually assured destruction. If you're asking me - everything should be done to make sure one can win in a potential nuclear war. MAD sounds like glorified defeatism to me. President Reagan had a great Strategic Defense Initiative but it has been shelved in the 90s. Now Space Force could be an attempt at bringing a lot of that back in a way that will be much harder to get rid of by future administrations. To not be working on such systems is (not necessarily mutually) "assured destruction".
- vkou 6y ago
  I don't care about what the official policy is. I care about the outcomes. Your reasoning means that the most optimal move for Russia would be to nuke you, today, before your anti-MAD system is in place. It will, after all, save more Russian lives then being attacked by an unassailable adversary in the future. The fact that you consider nuclear war to be winnable is horrifying. The whole point of it is that everyone loses. That's not defeatism, that's the only sane way to deal with two sides having end-of-the-world weapons.
  - auganov 6y ago
    > Your reasoning means that the most optimal move for Russia would be to nuke you No, I doubt Russia would dare use their nukes. Again the facility in Romania has become operational in 2019, no nuke from Russia so far. The one Obama cancelled was supposed to be in Poland. Roughly similar distance from mainland Russia. > The fact that you consider nuclear war to be winnable is horrifying. The whole point of it is that everyone loses. That's not defeatism, that's the only sane way to deal with two sides having end-of-the-world weapons. Expecting to lose without putting up a fight is defeatism. Nobody wants a nuclear war. But nonetheless I'm very happy that the US and other militaries are preparing for this scenario. Switzerland has a system of nuclear bunkers that can house more than its current population - I think that's very smart. It's not set in stone that humanity would end after such a war. Some projections even see most Americans surviving. And don't discount a scenario where America can totally neutralize an adversary's nuclear capability with new tech. This should be (and probably is) the goal. We don't even know that much about the current capability. Practically speaking a "MAD" approach benefits Russia much more than anybody else. Their military is rather unimpressive. Russia's nuclear capability is the only way Russia can seem strong and keep getting away with everything they do. Countries like Russia cannot be trusted to comply with any nuclear agreements. When the West stops its work on nuclear related technologies it only gives countries like Russia an edge.